JBR Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Dental Sciences

Prosthodontics Scientific Journals

systematic reviews (SR s) ought to be helpful to active professionals in creating evidence‐based clinical selections. However, the conclusions drawn from SR s are directly associated with the standard of the SR and of the enclosed studies. The aim was to analyze the method quality and key descriptive characteristics of SR s revealed in dental medicine. Method quality was analyzed victimization the Assessment of Multiple Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Many electronic resources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and American Dental Association's Evidence‐based Dentistry website) were searched. In total 106 SR s were placed. Key descriptive characteristics and method quality options were gathered and assessed, and descriptive and inferential applied mathematics testing performed. Most SR s during this sample originated from the ecu continent followed by North America. 2 to 5 authors conducted most SR s; the bulk was related to with educational establishments and had previous expertise business enterprise SR s. the bulk of SR s were revealed in specialty medical specialty journals, with implant or implant‐related topics, the first topics of interest for many. Consistent with AMSTAR, most quality aspects were adequately consummated by but half the reviews. Publication bias and gray literature searches were the foremost poorly adhered parts. Overall, the method quality of the prosthodontic‐related systematic was deemed restricted. Future recommendations would come with authors to own previous coaching in conducting SR s for journals to incorporate a universal list that ought to be adhered to handle all key characteristics of an unbiased SR method.    

High Impact List of Articles

Relevant Topics in General Science